I'm currently restarting an old writing project of mine and one thing that's been on my mind a lot is the details of invading a planet and defending against invasion. First off, let's start with some details on the universe this is taking place in. Interstellar travel is based around jumping between gravity wells, much like in Outsider. Both energy weapons and kinetic weapons exist and are used by the militaries of the galaxy, both have their advantages and disadvantages. In space, energy weapons have the distinct advantage of range while kinetic weapons are deadly at extremely close range (up to 50km). On the ground, the situation is a bit more complicated. The various factions of the galaxy have different levels of technology. The human military (the usual baseline) favors kinetic weapons, since switching development focus to energy weapons would put them behind their rivals on the research curve. Some other species developed energy-based weapons even before they achieved interstellar flight and thus have advanced energy weapons while their kinetic weapons would correspond to those we had during WWI.

If you have more questions, feel free to ask. Anyway, back to my current dilemma. I have the Humans and a species called Logieri fighting over a planet. The Logieri are a species with balanced energy/kinetic weapon development, but a strong lead in electronics and robotics. The planet was poorly defended and surrendered to human forces with little resistance. Anticipating insurgency or a counterattack, the humans deployed an army of mechanized infantry, a tank division and four squadrons of aircraft on the planet. The Logieri counterattacked with a larger fleet than expected and the human fleet chose to retreat and wait for reinforcements before commiting to a decisive engagement. Now, what I need are plans for planetary invasion and a defense strategy for the humans. Since I'm torn between many, many ideas, I want your opinions and questions. After all, it's quite easy to ask something that I haven't thought about before.

Wed Mar 09, 2011 7:16 am

Siber

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:10 amPosts: 346

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Seems to me the humans are pretty screwed. I presume the planet has a sizable Logieri population or the humans wouldn't need to worry about insurgents. Once orbit is ceded it seems to me the logical first step for the Logieri is to bombard any airfield, fortification, supply base or large concentration of forces the humans control from a high enough orbit that the humans can't shoot back at them. The tanks and planes will be quickly out of commission, and in my eyes the only way to save the infantry is to heavily decentralize their deployment, either spreading into cities where the Logieri would have to bombard their own civilian population, or out into the wilderness, somewhere that would provide them some form of cover from orbital surveillance. That is, the only way to save any of their forces is for them to become the insurgency, and one without any populace supporting them. Seems like the best the humans can hope to do is be a pain until their fleet returns.

The problem with this kind of Guadalcanal-style scenario in a planetary invasion is that there isn't really anywhere to hide on the surface of a planet from orbital fleets that can annihilate pretty much any surface forces. So the only real option is to go underground (literally) and fight a guerrilla war. Which, as Siber mentions, armored units and air squadrons are poorly equipped to fight. And a guerrilla war in a foreign land with no local support (cut off from supplies) is pretty much doomed to failure.

like siber said but i would focus more with the "hiding" with the population. That way they can do sabotage operation to prepare the ground for when the human fleet come back to help them, if they ever do.

What I really need to know about this situation is logistics and motivation. First: How serious is this war? Is this invasion a routine sort of border dispute that most people don't get too worked up about, or is it an all or nothing war for survival? Second: what is motivating the humans to invade the planet in the first place, what do they get out of the deal? Also, what about this planet makes it worth sending a huge fleet to defend for the enemies?

Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:43 am

Trantor

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:52 amPosts: 780Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

First you have to gain air- and space-superiority. As long as the enemy has a big fleet there´s no way to succeed in an invasion.Once established, you flood the planet with killer-robots and drones before sending down human forces.

_________________sapere aude.

Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:31 pm

Karst45

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:03 amPosts: 785Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Trantor wrote:

First you have to gain air- and space-superiority. As long as the enemy has a big fleet there´s no way to succeed in an invasion.Once established, you flood the planet with killer-robots and drones before sending down human forces.

why bother. any ship's point defense will be enough to kill the population.

If you want to just kill the population without damage, send neuro gas or something like that.

Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:53 pm

Siber

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:10 amPosts: 346

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Not all wars will be wars of annihilation. Drones and killbots can potentially be discriminating tools and clear a foothold for you to put down at without directly risking your troops lives in the first wave. If you just want to kill everything, yeah, no reason to ever send anything down but rocks and explosives.

The most important questions are, how and where can enemy fleet resupply?

In the best scenario (for humans): The enemy spaceships are uncapaple of working in attmosphere and landing. (Like ISS station) They have inferior recycling, so they need supply of air, food, water & parts from planet. On the planet are only small numbers of launching sites & shuttles for supply, which are easy to sabotage.

The next most important questions are, how long the ships can stay without supply and how fast they can get it from somewhere else?

_________________Supporter of forum RPG

Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:05 pm

Mjolnir

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:24 amPosts: 423

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Martenzo wrote:

Some other species developed energy-based weapons even before they achieved interstellar flight and thus have advanced energy weapons while their kinetic weapons would correspond to those we had during WWI.

This progression doesn't make much sense to me. For starters, we're developing our first energy weapons now, and there's no sign of interstellar travel happening any time soon. The development it's taken, the nature of the weapons...there isn't some secret you can happen across by chance and get a head start on energy weapons with WW1 technology. And really, firearms today are not that much more advanced technologically than those of WW1...

A physiological limitation might make more sense. For example, perhaps they're more sensitive to the sound and shock of gunfire, and used small caliber firearms and crossbows until they developed energy weapons, and rockets instead of heavy artillery.

Martenzo wrote:

If you have more questions, feel free to ask. Anyway, back to my current dilemma. I have the Humans and a species called Logieri fighting over a planet. The Logieri are a species with balanced energy/kinetic weapon development, but a strong lead in electronics and robotics. The planet was poorly defended and surrendered to human forces with little resistance. Anticipating insurgency or a counterattack, the humans deployed an army of mechanized infantry, a tank division and four squadrons of aircraft on the planet. The Logieri counterattacked with a larger fleet than expected and the human fleet chose to retreat and wait for reinforcements before commiting to a decisive engagement. Now, what I need are plans for planetary invasion and a defense strategy for the humans. Since I'm torn between many, many ideas, I want your opinions and questions. After all, it's quite easy to ask something that I haven't thought about before.

I'm with the "they're screwed" camp. If they were worried about insurgents before, and orbit is now controlled by an enemy fleet...they can try to hold the populace and infrastructure hostage, but that'll just provide even more motivation for everybody else involved to kill them. Their equipment's just about useless, the populace is hostile, they can't hide...

If the situation is total war and there's no major objection to causing large casualties among the locals, you could throw all your equipment into smashing infrastructure and disrupting government before the enemy fleet arrives. Destroy any semblance of order to make it as close to impossible as you can for anyone to communicate your location to the fleet, and then dig in and do your best to look like a random group of survivors to orbital observers. Scorch the earth and hide in the embers, and hope your fleet gets reinforcements and extracts you before you get killed. Not exactly an ideal solution. In the situation as described, if you're making any effort to minimize civilian casualties, about all you can do is destroy all your equipment to prevent its capture, and surrender.

You've not given much detail about the relationship between the two sides, however. Any sort of local support would completely change the situation...say Earth made a deal with another Logieri faction to hand the planet over to them or share it after the conflict's finished. If there's a local population with ties to that faction (maybe from a less successful attempt by them to colonize the planet), people with a reason to aid the humans, they could fight with some degree of effectiveness.

Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:02 pm

CptWinters

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:20 pmPosts: 177

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Think about it this way: what happened to the Germans when they lost air superiority over Europe? It's essentially the same scenario. While the tactical use of orbital weapons is perhaps debatable, the loss of naval superiority in orbit around the planet will allow the Logieri to track the movements of human conventional forces and destroy supply depots, assembly areas, and landing strips. icekatze is correct; large-scale human resistance was doomed the moment the human fleet ceded control of the planet's orbit.

In general, the effectiveness of naval support is limited by:

The availability of ships; if you've only got a small fleet with which to prosecute a war, you can't afford to have a permanent force standing around doing nothing but watching for enemy ground deployments.

The range of naval weapons. This doesn't really apply when considering orbital bombardment, but reducing the effectiveness of beam weapons might have a similar effect.

The cost of using such weapons in a long-term bombardment. See: Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The strength of enemy "coastal" fortifications. If the planet has extant fortifications sufficient to deter the enemy from spending any significant time in orbit, you've freed up the space for ground actions, but that also means that any ground engagement will be decisive; the side without control of the fortifications will be unable to bring in replacements for lost troops.

Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:41 pm

Martenzo

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:48 pmPosts: 65Location: Estonia

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Hmm... okay. Yes. The humans are fairly screwed. But you've given me good things to think about and elaborate. First of all, it's my job to make sure that the humans do have a chance. Just laying down arms would make a poor story. My plan is for the humans to hold out, but only barely and with heavy casualties. I need your help in making that scenario feel realistic and not simply arbitrary. So let's get started on some elaborations.

First off, the nature of the war. The idea that this is a border skirmish, rather than a full-scale war is an interesting idea that didn't occur to me. So I've decided that this is the start of a war the humans have planned for some time. The Logieri have not realized this and believe that this is a limited border skirmish over a resource-rich border world. Furthermore, there is a strong sentiment against this war in human society to begin with, so the Logieri want to be careful about casualties on both sides. This is because of an uncommon (but not unique) trait of human psychology in this galaxy. After suffering terrible casualties and seeing, public support for a war goes up before it drops. The Rally Round the Flag Syndrome, except not limited to United States.

Having seen your opinions, it's clear that the humans have only one viable choice. To bunker down in the major population centers. Something I forgot to mention is that the planetary capital, where much of the story will take place, was built specifically with defense against orbital assault in mind. The structures, even civilian ones, use what I call magnetic reinforcement. The short description is that strong magnets are placed inside the walls and the concrete mix used for the walls is saturated with iron. (Question, could something like this actually work?). The downside of this is that it requires a lot of power and the city's power stations need an outside supply of fusion fuel.

Now, another thing I've been thinking about is the actual energy-efficiency of orbital bombardment. My current line of thinking is that energy weapons don't quite have the energy of kinetic weapons. The reason they're good in space is because of their range, and the fact that it's hard to build a starship that isn't fragile. Another advantage of energy weapons is that it removes the need for munitions. A ship will only need to bring along more fuel for its' power generator. Now, what I'd really like to know is whether or not my assumptions match up with reality. As...someone already mentioned, we're already developing energy weapons. Would a laser cannon of hit with less energy on a target than a kinetic cannon of equal volume.

Oh, and here's something for you to go on. My first writing on that particular conflict. http://martenzo.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d2i56raAs I mention in the comment there, I originally intended this to be a prelude for a story with less actual combat in it. Now I've decided to expand on this a bit more, since I've lost my old notebook and most of my old digital files.

Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:24 am

Trantor

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:52 amPosts: 780Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Martenzo wrote:

First off, the nature of the war. The idea that this is a border skirmish, rather than a full-scale war is an interesting idea that didn't occur to me. So I've decided that this is the start of a war the humans have planned for some time.

Hm. If they planned it, they have the initiative. To keep it, air-/space superiority is mandatory.

Martenzo wrote:

The Logieri have not realized this and believe that this is a limited border skirmish over a resource-rich border world.

That would be a point: An incompetent enemy leader.

Martenzo wrote:

Furthermore, there is a strong sentiment against this war in human society to begin with, so the Logieri want to be careful about casualties on both sides.

The Logieri? If i was a Logieri, my primary concern would be as much human collateral damage as possible.

Having seen your opinions, it's clear that the humans have only one viable choice. To bunker down in the major population centers. Something I forgot to mention is that the planetary capital, where much of the story will take place, was built specifically with defense against orbital assault in mind. The structures, even civilian ones, use what I call magnetic reinforcement. The short description is that strong magnets are placed inside the walls and the concrete mix used for the walls is saturated with iron. (Question, could something like this actually work?).

Magnetics have very poor efficieny in range.

_________________sapere aude.

Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:23 am

Karst45

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:03 amPosts: 785Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Mjolnir wrote:

This progression doesn't make much sense to me. For starters, we're developing our first energy weapons now, and there's no sign of interstellar travel happening any time soon. The development it's taken, the nature of the weapons...there isn't some secret you can happen across by chance and get a head start on energy weapons with WW1 technology. And really, firearms today are not that much more advanced technologically than those of WW1...

Well you know, we aren't the standard for the universe. a lots of scientist have for granted that solar system should mostly be all looking like our. In the end they were proven wrong on many case.

So why do alien spices would need to develop the technologies in the same order as our? Sure there some base tech spear arrow sword and thing like that but who know, maybe they had an abundance of energy (or way to produce it) so they went for energy weapon since it was easier than mining to get some compound to explode in metal cylinder.

Sure they first attempt at energy weapon might have give something like a cattle prod or a Tesla tower but that still a valid theory.

After all we kind of went for chemical propelled bullet because we mostly got our energy from chemical reaction (if you consider burning coal as a chemical reaction) What if we discovered nuclear power first?

Martenzo wrote:

Having seen your opinions, it's clear that the humans have only one viable choice. To bunker down in the major population centers. Something I forgot to mention is that the planetary capital, where much of the story will take place, was built specifically with defense against orbital assault in mind. The structures, even civilian ones, use what I call magnetic reinforcement. The short description is that strong magnets are placed inside the walls and the concrete mix used for the walls is saturated with iron. (Question, could something like this actually work?). The downside of this is that it requires a lot of power and the city's power stations need an outside supply of fusion fuel.

well we are currently developing this technology so if your alien were advanced in energy field i see no problem with that.

Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:24 am

Mjolnir

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:24 amPosts: 423

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Karst45 wrote:

Well you know, we aren't the standard for the universe. a lots of scientist have for granted that solar system should mostly be all looking like our. In the end they were proven wrong on many case.

Even if that were true (it's not), it wouldn't be even remotely comparable.

Karst45 wrote:

So why do alien spices would need to develop the technologies in the same order as our? Sure there some base tech spear arrow sword and thing like that but who know, maybe they had an abundance of energy (or way to produce it) so they went for energy weapon since it was easier than mining to get some compound to explode in metal cylinder.

But it isn't easier. It's much, much harder to make energy weapons than it is to make projectile weapons. This isn't because we lack access to energy, they are fundamentally much more complex and difficult to make.

Karst45 wrote:

After all we kind of went for chemical propelled bullet because we mostly got our energy from chemical reaction (if you consider burning coal as a chemical reaction) What if we discovered nuclear power first?

Discovering nuclear power before chemical power, and deploying nuclear powered projectile weapons before figuring out chemical propellants is just completely, utterly implausible. And developing nuclear powered energy weapons before figuring out how to throw sticks and stones?

You can't stuff magic rocks in a tube and get a laser rifle. The technological capability to construct energy weapons implies the technological capability to construct projectile weapons. Same goes for the ability to construct spacecraft.

Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:30 pm

Mjolnir

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:24 amPosts: 423

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Martenzo wrote:

The structures, even civilian ones, use what I call magnetic reinforcement. The short description is that strong magnets are placed inside the walls and the concrete mix used for the walls is saturated with iron. (Question, could something like this actually work?). The downside of this is that it requires a lot of power and the city's power stations need an outside supply of fusion fuel.

If they have room temperature superconductors, it actually would not require a lot of power...it wouldn't require any power, actually. High temperature superconductors and good cryogenic cooling systems would allow relatively reasonable power requirements. Without superconductors, I don't think it's at all plausible, though...not just the power, but there's the heating of the coils to consider.

Concrete doesn't make any sense though...it's heavy and has low tensile strength. You'd be using lightweight composites, metals, etc, arranged in structures that guide the magnetic fields and use them to hold their shape. And leakage of the magnetic fields would be a major issue...you might have to forbid objects made of ferromagnetic materials from the vicinity, and be careful about anything with moving conductive parts.

Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:22 pm

Karst45

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:03 amPosts: 785Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Mjolnir wrote:

Karst45 wrote:

Well you know, we aren't the standard for the universe. a lots of scientist have for granted that solar system should mostly be all looking like our. In the end they were proven wrong on many case.

Even if that were true (it's not), it wouldn't be even remotely comparable.

Scientist tended to believe that planet bigger than earth would only be found around the same distance of their sun than our earth. No only those are closer to the sun that mercury, but they are also bigger.

How it comparable? well It not because you see it happen that way in our system that it will happen the very same way in every system. The same can be said about the evolution, biological or technological wise.

Mjolnir wrote:

Karst45 wrote:

So why do alien spices would need to develop the technologies in the same order as our? Sure there some base tech spear arrow sword and thing like that but who know, maybe they had an abundance of energy (or way to produce it) so they went for energy weapon since it was easier than mining to get some compound to explode in metal cylinder.

But it isn't easier. It's much, much harder to make energy weapons than it is to make projectile weapons. This isn't because we lack access to energy, they are fundamentally much more complex and difficult to make.

[...] The technological capability to construct energy weapons implies the technological capability to construct projectile weapons. Same goes for the ability to construct spacecraft.

Once again you still assuming that they follow the same progress as we did. What if they didn't have a lots of war and only needed primitive weapon for hunting. Then they developed technology until the point they "mastered" energy tech at this point they found out that "hey were not alone" why would they go back to building projectile rifle when they already know the energy field?

also you don't need to have the tech for projectile weapon to progress to energy and that even if you claim so. I will still say it, that how YOU assume everything should work in the universe, based solely on the fact that WE did it that way. Be open minded and am sure you can find all sort of reason for them not to have prioritized ballistics weapon.

Scientist tended to believe that planet bigger than earth would only be found around the same distance of their sun than our earth. No only those are closer to the sun that mercury, but they are also bigger.

Anyone who expected all other systems to look just like our own wasn't practicing science. Our first models were based on the one system we had any detail about...you won't find a scientist surprised that the existing models don't fit all the new systems. This does not mean scientists aren't extremely interested and surprised by the nature of the differences.

Karst45 wrote:

How it comparable? well It not because you see it happen that way in our system that it will happen the very same way in every system. The same can be said about the evolution, biological or technological wise.

It's not comparable. It doesn't matter if some people may have put excessive weight to an untested model, it's a simple fact that doing certain things requires the ability to do certain other things...it is not remotely plausible for a civilization to master rocketry and energy weapons and not be able to figure out how to do decent projectile weapons. Aside from the fact that projectile weapons don't even require metals, rockets themselves can easily be repurposed as projectile weapons.

Karst45 wrote:

Once again you still assuming that they follow the same progress as we did. What if they didn't have a lots of war and only needed primitive weapon for hunting. Then they developed technology until the point they "mastered" energy tech at this point they found out that "hey were not alone" why would they go back to building projectile rifle when they already know the energy field?

I am not making such an assumption. I gave specific examples of influences that might force them to favor energy weapons! I'm only assuming their course of development was a physically and technologically plausible one...no pre-industrial nuclear-powered maser weapons.

Karst45 wrote:

also you don't need to have the tech for projectile weapon to progress to energy and that even if you claim so. I will still say it, that how YOU assume everything should work in the universe, based solely on the fact that WE did it that way. Be open minded and am sure you can find all sort of reason for them not to have prioritized ballistics weapon.

Being open minded doesn't mean accepting every idea that might fly into your head regardless of its merits. I am not making the assumptions you claim I am, I am bringing up certain logical flaws in the initial idea...and much worse ones in your own posts. As for projectile weapons...they are trivial in comparison to all the industrial development needed to progress to spaceflight and energy weapons, and require nothing you wouldn't gain in developing those technologies. Even if you never used such things as weapons, you could never get past the early industrial age and remain oblivious to the mechanics involved, and they do have uses aside from weaponry.

If anything, the projectile weapons produced in such a situation would probably be more technologically complex, with higher tech approaches being adopted due to the lack of good-enough solutions backed by tradition and inertia. Less refined, perhaps, with complicated solutions used when simple ones could suffice, but more like an expensive high-tech toy than an antique.

Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Karst45

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:03 amPosts: 785Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Well think what you will. your contradicting yourself in your claim, making me believe you just want to be right for the sole purpose of being right. So i wont get in your game.

So for the author, All possibility exist in your universe. i gave many example of how it could be possible, just be sure to point that out so the "true to science" kind of reader aren't confused by it.

Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:33 pm

Trantor

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:52 amPosts: 780Location: Hamburg, Germany

Recent News are just coincidence...

Martenzo wrote:

The downside of this is that it requires a lot of power and the city's power stations need an outside supply of fusion fuel...

Well, as long as it´s not fission fuel...

_________________sapere aude.

Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:25 pm

osmium

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:53 pmPosts: 85

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

I'll make a quick reply.To makes things more interesting, remove the enemy fleet. Have there be something like a combat over the planet because the enemy ship was hiding behind the planet. You could maybe have there be some sort of collision if they got going fast enough and the accelerations that are possible are low enough, but suffice to say have all air power knocked out. The problem is that logically species will prepare for the way the world is. If there are tornadoes there will be tornado drills. If there is the threat of invasion there will be bombardment drills. Allies will have safe zones and will just vaporize anything else that moves on the planet, there would be no need for communication and nowhere to hide.

As for technology, Mjolnir is correct, unless you're going to have some sort of benefactor race that taught the race how to build certain technologies and so while they understand and developed them first, they sort of got a headstart in one area and hence design in the other sort of petered out. It's really really hard to avoid making chemical weapons before others, you'd need some sort of repressive regime and society that is against technological progress (the only reason why China isn't 4000 years ahead of us despite having fireworks for so long).

That being said you're perfectly welcome to ignore reality and rewrite stuff how you want to, you're just asking for more suspension of disbelief out of your readers especially if there isn't a good plausible reason / solution. I also think for impact you might want to have well defined motivations and goals for the two sides, why are they in this conflict, for what reasons would they stop fighting, are they external or internal etc.

-O

Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:37 pm

Mjolnir

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:24 amPosts: 423

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

I gave some plausible reasons for specializing in energy weapons...physiological limitations to dealing with recoil and noise, for example. It's the degree of disparity I have an issue with...the idea of projectile weapons being left at WWI levels while energy weapons are highly developed. Perhaps they replaced advanced high-power projectile weapons with energy weapons, but that doesn't make their projectile weapons less advanced.

Prerequisites for producing projectile weapons are useless or only of very indirect use for producing energy weapons. Prerequisites for energy weapons, on the other hand, imply the capability of producing projectile weapons. A tube, a projectile, and some propellant get you a basic firearm. An energy weapon requires a high density energy source and a high density, high power pulsed power source. You're not going to get close to making energy weapons without industry with all sorts of machinery that is more than sufficient for producing guns.

Back to the scenario at hand...If the humans don't have local support that can hide them, they need something that protects them from the fleet in orbit, and really from any alien controlled military aircraft. Say part of the planet suffers severe seasonal storms, enough wind, rain, clouds and lightning to keep aircraft out of the sky and make it difficult to tell human activity on the ground apart from Logieri civilians...taking out optical observation and greatly interfering with radar, thermal, etc. The humans land ahead of the storms and disrupt communications...and then they only have to deal with Logieri on the ground and the weather until the season ends and the storms clear. If the enemy fleet's not gone by then...it's time to surrender.

The situation is still a matter of surviving. I just see no way for such a small number of humans to maintain control of an inhabited alien planet or even a well-defended city while a hostile fleet has control of orbit. (and how did they capture such a well-defended city without destroying the defenses?)

If you can build a rocketship, you can necessarily build a projectile weapon.

One thing tactic that might work for the humans would be to use decoys. Depending on the capabilities of the orbiting fleet, they might waste a lot of time going after fakes... but they're going to have to be pretty convincing fakes, so I don't know if that is something the invaders would have on hand.

Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:26 pm

discord

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:44 amPosts: 614Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

if the hostiles control the orbitals AND have access to military orbital bombardment.... and the friendlies do NOT have friends on the ground? with no expected relief within the next week or so? the commander that does not surrender under those circumstances is either fighting a utterly total genocidal war(expecting the hostiles to not take prisoners) or certifiably insane.

change any of those, and the commander just might not get shot for treason assuming he survived long enough to stand trial(the hostiles just might kill him before his own men get around to doing it.)

a simple question, can humans even forage on the planet? is the biology at all compatible?

Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:00 am

bunnyboy

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:21 pmPosts: 485Location: Finland

Re: Planetary Invasion/Defense

Orbital forces are meaningles if the target is good for hiding.

But good point. If humans can't eat a thing, the war is soon over for them.